New NYC “Karen” incident

Post Reply New Topic

Did you not see the video in which, after first falsely accusing him of having her phone, grabbing at him in an attempt to seize his phone - she (22) then ran at and tackled a boy (14) to the floor?

I suppose it could have been a harmless example of voluntary synchronised floor-diving but assault seems more likely, wouldn't you think - and that the video is proof in itself? Satisfying even your own lofty expectations, surely.

It’s irrelevant whether racism was involved. She’s being charged with felonies and misdemeanors, and deservedly so! She has at least one DUI case in California.

She’s a walking time bomb. She needs some jail time, then extensive therapy.

Kraftie Kirstie has said succinctly what I was trying to.
If the video is real, she assaulted a child.
No one, not even her, has questioned that the video is real.
Therefore, she tackled that boy.
A previous history of aggressive behavior has surfaced.
That’s where I say she needs professional help.
Someone will get hurt if she does not.
I believe.
Just my opinion, not WP, or any other member.

To claim something a person did is "proven assault" when the incident being described has yet to go to court (and so not proven), and when the only assault charge placed against the person is "attempted assault" is what could lead to the defamation claims against the site (particularly as a site admin appears to endorse what was said) and yourself, should the person involved become aware of the site and the claim there.

I realise that in this case it is unlikely they would see it - The post I made was simply to ensure that you were aware of how the choice of words you made and which a site admin supported may affect this site.

I respect that.
You are right.
I have no wish to bring any sort of trouble to WP; it has been a source of communication and friendship for me.
I will be more careful with my wording.
I believe she physically assaulted that child.
I personally believe she is emotionally capable of another physical assault if she becomes upset again to that degree.
Moreover, for her own sake, I believe that she can be a happier person if she has a professional guide her through anger management.

No worries...Having seen the video, it certainly did (does?) look like she assaulted him (I was surprised by the charge only being "attempted assault"). I guess the required component (physical injury) was not met, which was why the specific charge was "Attempted" rather than actual assault.

The "Endangerment of a child" charge is connected to this "assault" portion of the altercation as well, as under § 260.10,the relevent component related to this is:


With this case, I can see both the prosecutions's side (It certainly does give the appearance of assault on the video), and also the potential defence that may be used in that she was trying to get\grab the telephone rather than making contact with the child\knock him down as occurred (which would likely tie in to the "attempted grand larceny" and "attempted robbery" charges). Please don't take this as an endorsement (or otherwise) of her actions, it is simply how I see things likely to play out should it go to trial - I try to take an objective view, looking at events from both sides, in order to help explain how it may be possible for a person to be found "not guilty" of something where it appears that they should have been found "guilty".

I'm actually expecting this to result in a plea deal rather than going to court (due to both the video footage and the publicity linked to it), and expect at least 1 or 2 of the charges to be dropped as part of this - either "attempted robbery" or "attempted grand larceny" and either "Attempted assault" or "Endangerment of a child", as in both case the charges are for the same event\activity\instance, but I'm not sure which is more likely to stand. In the former, I'd expect the "Attempted Grand larceny" to be dropped and the "attempted robbery" to stand...

Considering the wording of the appropriate statutes, I can see "Endangerment of a child" being more likely to stand and "attempted assault" be dropped under the above potential defence, but it is also possible that the reverse occurs should she feel a record of "attempted assault" sounds preferable to a record containing "Endangerment of a child".

I'm no lawyer but Ponsetto is being charged by the prosecution with assault (not attempted assault). It's for the court to decide to her claim that her intention was to detain 14 yr old Harrold Jr. and thus not have assaulted him.

It's somewhat strange to charge her with an "attempt" as the court is not deciding if her intention was to assault him or not. The court is deciding whether her actions constitute assault.

Therefore I don't see anything wrong with what Sylkat said?? Happy for cornflake or any other moderator to correct me if I am wrong,

Do you have a source for where the charge was changed from "attempted assault" to actual "assault", as I hadn't seen any indication of this?

At present, a I understood it, the charge was still "attempted assault" (Although there appear to be 2 counts of the charge):

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/supervised-release-soho-karen-miya-031200915.html

To clarify: If you watch the earlier video I linked from Nate Broady, he explains that the "attempted" portion of a charge relies on the defendant intending to commit the specific action the charge is in relation to, but not completing the task (for example, swinging a fist at someone and missing would be "attempted assault", as the person would be intending to assault their victim, but did not succeed). In this specific case, as "assault" requires "physical injury" to result to the victim, "attempted assault" charges may simply be because her actions would have constituted assault were the victim(s) to have sustained physical injury, but as there was no injury, no actual "assault" occurred (a bruise of any size would be enough to count as a physical injury).

Ok so the terminology presented is confusing.

Where the terminology is confusing (for me anyway) is determining the attempt. This presupposes whether the court can determine whether her intention was to assault? I anticipate she/her layer Ghatan will try to convince the court her intention was to detain not assault. So the second part is whether the "attempt" to assault was achieved. The video strongly suggests it was e.g. he was assaulted but again that's for the court to decide whether in tackling him to the ground he was physically hurt.

Hence my early comment that it was self-evident he was hurt and his legal team will likely present medical and psychological reports to prove both physical and psychological damage.

There also issues of provocation which there appear to be no reason for her to physically detain/use force on the boy. Secondly there is the age issue which as an adult (despite her attempts to claim she is a girl) physically detaining a child constitutes a crime.,

It's like a 22 yr old man being accused of rape by a 14 year old girl. Even if he was able to convince a court that sex was consensual, he would still be prosecuted for statutory rape of a minor.

I would be amazed if the court found she was only trying to detain the boy but either way Posnetto is screwed anyway.

The "endangerment of a child"\"acting in a manner injurious to a child" (depending on how reported) appears to be added as a result of the actions which occurred, both due to the child's age, and also because it is much more easily proven that "attempted assault" (or actual assault, were physical injury to have occurred), given how broad the statute is - "knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old" would conceivably cover trying to take hold of something in a child's hand, resulting in both parties falling to the ground which could have caused physical injury, even if no such injury occurred.

From the prosecution\video, it certainly looks like she may have tackled the child. From the defence side, they will likely claim she was trying to make contact with the mobile telephone in the child's hand (?), and this resulted in them falling, which was not intended.

To understand the "attempted" portion, have a look at 5:14 - about 6:10 in the Nate Broady video (linked earlier and below), where he explains how "attempted" charges work. Put simply, it is where something comes close to meeting the requirements for the given crime, but doesn't quite reach\meet all the requirements for the full crime (in the case of attempted assault here, this would be most likely due to no physical injury (even a small bruise) sustained - everything else required to meet the definition of "assault" outside of that is conceivably present).

Someone can shove me, hit me, seen on film, I land on th ground, and if I have no bruise, scrape or scratches, I was not legally assaulted?
Seriously?

The requirements for assault would differ between jurisdictions.

In New York (where this occurred), it appears that would be the case.

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00

Worst case, though, I'm sure you could manage to scrape your hand\knee when getting up, which should be enough for a charge of assault (although lacking the physical injury, they would still likely be able to be charged with "attempted assault").

Depending on where you live, the requirements for "assault" would differ, so it may be that "physical injury" isn't required for "assault" where you are. In Victoria, Australia, for example, "assault" is very different:

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s31.html

Under the definition here, she would almost certainly be found guilty of assault (direct aplication of force to the body\clothing of the child without lawful excuse, and recklessly causing pain(?), discomfort, insult(?), or deprevation of liberty(?)), even if it was found she was simply trying to gain access to his mobile telephone and as a result they fell on the ground.

Yes I didn't think about this line of defence that she was trying to grab his phone and tripped in the process. But what doesn't look so good (from the video) is that she appears to tackle him concurrently trying to grab his phone. So it still looks like i) unlawful detention of a minor ii) attempted theft of the boy's phone and iii) physical assault (attempted?)

For i) and ii) it's an open and shut case. For iii) that's for the court to decide. The Harrold's lawyer is also likely to ask this be classified as a hate crime given their case also involves iv) Ponsetto racially profiling the boy as a thief on the basis he is black.

So the court has the job of determining iii) and iv).

You forget there;s also battery.

Battery: Definition

Although the statutes defining battery will vary by jurisdiction, a typical definition for battery is the intentional offensive or harmful touching of another person without their consent. Under this general definition, a battery offense requires all of the following:

intentional touching;
the touching must be harmful or offensive;
no consent from the victim.
Battery: Intent Requirement

It may come as some surprise that a battery generally does not require any intent to harm the victim (although such intent often exists in battery cases). Instead, a person need only have an intent to contact or cause contact with an individual. Additionally if someone acts in a criminally reckless or negligent manner that results in such contact, it may constitute an assault. As a result, accidentally bumping into someone, offensive as the "victim" might consider it to be, would not constitute a battery.

Battery: Act Requirement

The criminal act required for battery boils down to an offensive or harmful contact. This can range anywhere from the obvious battery where a physical attack such as a punch or kick is involved, to even minimal contact in some cases. Generally, a victim doesn't need to be injured or harmed for a battery to have occurred, so long as an offensive contact is involved.

That's why I said Ponsetto is screwed either way. In addition Ponsetto is on probation for DUI so there is a high likelihood of her facing jail time.

Unfortunately, I didn't believe New York has a Battery statute (from what I recall from Nate's other videos, and the fact no charge of Battery was laid).

And to confirm this:

Source: https://www.martinkanelaw.com/criminal-defense/how-is-assault-and-battery-defined-in-new-york/

Ok so all The Harrold's legal team have is child endangerment and attempted assault.

What about a hate crime? is racial profiling leading to the act a criminal act?